IL--Don't Prosecute Bob Buttrum for Catching a Thief!

[liliysdad]

Looks like three people here don't see anything wrong with stealing. Even stealing small amounts is still stealing. Let this go on and everybody will try it. If this guy stole a takn of gas every week in a year the amount would be quite high. This needs to be applied more often.

I never once said that stealing is OK...exactly the opposite. Its simply not prudent, nor intelligent to risk the lives of countles innocents over a tank fo gas. He should have taken the description and tagh number, and let the proper authorities handle it.

I guess the fact that I am an LEO affects my judgement in this...I would have arrested both of them.....NO tank of gas is worth a life, whether it is the victims, the subject, or anyone who happened to get in the way.

Whether you like it or not, the law is the law, and it works if you give it a chance. Youd be amazed the amount of drive-offs we castch here.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yeah, but here you have people who arent trained in high pursuit driving putting god knows how many people in danger as they speed down the street chasing someone all over 20 bucks as most in gas. Its just irresponsible. Far too many innocent people could have been hurt or killed all over a few dollars.

Since you have made a categorical statement that the people involved in the pursuit were not trained in high speed pursuit, I assume I can safely infer that you either know them personally or have access to their life histories, correct?

Just because someone is a "civilian" doesn't mean the cops are better drivers, any more than it means the cops are better skilled at firearms use and handling. Not far from where I live a section of a 4-lane state highway is named after a deceased law enforcement sergeant, who died in the line of duty by driving his patrol car off said highway while pursuing a kid driving a car 20 years older and running bald tires.

I'm a former sports car racer and championship autocrosser. I KNOW I'm a better driver at speed than 98 percent of the LEOs on the road, but if this article were about me there is no way that information would make it into the discussion.

I think you have leapt unerringly to an unwarranted conclusion.

 

[liliysdad]

I dont care how good a driver YOU are, you are not qualified to make a pursuit, nor are you legally able, thus you would be wrong as well.

 

[Rebeldon]

Being a victim of a crime, especially a non-violent crime, did not make Bob Buttrum above the law, nor does it give him the right to pursuit the thief at high speed, and then hold the thief at gun point. His life was not in danger. But he put his own life in danger, as well as others, when he tore down the road after the thief. What if the thief tried to run? Would he have shot him? Would you still be defending him if he had shot the thief?

I can't blindly support a citizen's stupid, reckless, dangerous and illegal actions simply for the sake of gun rights. I'm sorry he's in trouble. I'm sure if he had it all to do over again, he wouldn't do it.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

I would like to give a big salute to Mr. Buttrum.





SALUTE!!!!!

 

[Rebeldon]

Salute?

I'm the first to salute an armed citizen who defends himself. But in this case, he wasn't defending himself. Mr. Buttrum just gave the anti-CCW crowd in Illinios one more talking point. All he had to do was get the tag number. After that, there was no urgency. What was he going to do, hurry up and catch him so he could siphon the gas back into his tank. i understand his emotion, but true justice must be patient.

 

[HankB]

Interesting read . . . some people object to the pursuit based on danger to innocent third parties . . . I can see their point. But some other posts appear to be of the "don't chase and threaten somebody just because they stole from you" mindset.

It makes me wonder whether or not these folks, on some level, identify more with the thief than with the gas station owner.

 

[flatrock]

I'm sorry, but the poor feller should have taken the license tag number and called the police. There was no forcible felony committed by the guy who stole the gas. It's not like the guy kidnapped somebody--he stole gas. Chasing him down in his car and holding the guy a gunpoint for stealing gas is illegal in any state. It is unjustified.

This quote by one person seemed to sum up the beliefs of others.

There was once a time in our country where people thought it was their duty to chase after and stop thieves. There was once an opinion that the criminal was responsible for their actions and the results of those actions.

People concentrate on the danger posed by the people chasing the criminal, but it was the criminal that was fleeing and creating the dangerous situation.

The criminal who drove off and led people on a chase should bear the major responsibility for the situation. He escalated the minor theft to a serious crime. People need to quit blaming the people who try and apprehend criminals for placing people in danger, and start punishing the criminals who flee and cause dangerous situation severely.

If this guy broke Illinois law in his chase, then he should be charged accordingly, however the estimation of 90 MPH was by someone they drove by, and can hardly be taken as accurate. It's up to a grand jury, and possibly a regular jury to determine if his actions were uncalled for.

As for the particular issue of his use of a gun? If he can't legally use a gun in this case, then the 2nd Ammendment isn't being upheld. His actions in chasing after the criminal may be questionable, but that would be a seperate charge from the firearms charge.

 

[pinblaster]

Well stated , flatrock , very well stated !

 

[Rebeldon]

Running after a thief on foot and chasing him down on the road in a car are two different things. And holding somebody at gunpoint who hasn't committed a forcible felony is just plain wrong. When Mr. Buttrum held the thief at gunpoint, he was saying, "I'm going to shoot you if you try to run away from me!" Let's say the thief tried to run and Mr. Buttrum shot him, would that be a justifiable homicide? Could Bill Gates hold you at gunpoint until the police arrive if he found out that you had a bootleg copy of Windows? That's also theft! A drive off is not a violent crime. I've done it by accident before. But when I discovered my mistake ten minutes later, I turned around, went back and paid for the gas. What if the owner had chased me down and held me at gunpoint?

I've chased down a criminal before. The guy was carjacking people right in front of our office. When he couldn't drive the stick shift, he took off down the street. I trailed behind at a distance to see where he was going, but he threatened to shoot me, so I slowed my pursuit a little. He tried to carjack somebody else, but they refused to let him have their car. Then he ran to Wendy's and carjacked a girl at the drive-thru. When it appeared that he was blocked because the traffic was heavy, he jumped out of the car and let it keep rolling. I caught up to the scene by that time, and I jumped into the car to stop it from hitting other cars that where waiting to pull out of the Wendy's parking lot. When I got out of her car, I saw that my boss had grabbed the carjacker. When I approached to help, the carjacker reached into his jacket, the same way he did when he threatened to shoot me, so I quickly drew my revolver and pointed it at him, and he gave up. When I discovered he didn't have a gun, I put my revolver back into my pocket. I didn't hold him at gunpoint (he was kind of whimpy anyway). Several citizens joined in to help detain him until the cops arrived. The cops praised everybody involved in apprehending the carjacker. My boss and I, as well as several others, have been summoned as witnesses against the carjacker, but the case has been delayed for some reason.

In this case, if I had shot the guy, I would have been justified. He was committing a forcible felony, and he assaulted me by threatening to shoot me, as well as three others, and then acted as though he was actually drawing a weapon from his jacket. I had a good reason to believe I was in danger.

I swear, I think some of you would shoot a feller for stealing a pie off your window sill.

 

[pinblaster]

rebeldon , you shock me with your "wild west" mentality . You pulled a gun on a whimpy little carjacker who was unarmed and was only trying to steal a car . It's a good thing he was unarmed or you might not be here today telling the story . When were you going to decide you had to shoot him ? After he shot you ? BTW where I live people are smart e-nuff not to put pies on thier windowsills .

 

[Rebeldon]

rebeldon , you shock me with your "wild west" mentality . You pulled a gun on a whimpy little carjacker who was unarmed and was only trying to steal a car.

Even a whimp with a gun can kill you. Stealing a car by telling somebody you'll shoot them is a forcible felonly, whether you have a gun or not. In Florida, you can use deadly force against the perp in this case.

It's a good thing he was unarmed or you might not be here today telling the story . When were you going to decide you had to shoot him ? After he shot you ?

It's a good thing for him that he pulled an empty hand out of his jacket or I would have squeezed the trigger.

BTW where I live people are smart e-nuff not to put pies on thier windowsills .

What do you mean? Don't you know that letting your pie cool off in the fresh air makes the crust crispier?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Salute?

Yep, that's right.....SALUTE!!!

How many times had this guy been robbed? I'll bet drive offs are pretty common.
How high on the police list of priorities do you do you think this is?
Let's see, Homicide Division.....Narcotics.....Gasoline Drive Off Division...don't think so.

Say someone keeps coming to your house and stealing things from you. Not grand theft, but things like your lawn mower, a TV, lawn ornaments, that old canoe, etc, etc. I know someone this has happened to and he's just SOL.
Chances are you're never going to see that stuff again and the cops are not going to devote a whole lot of time to finding the perp.

You just going to keep filing reports and filling out insurance claims?

I'm not. Sometimes you just have to say enough is enough.

 

[Gary]

The headline in the Morning Sentinel this morning stated that "Gun Owner Will Not Be Prosecuted."

 

[liliysdad]

Another instance of mob mentality ... its a shame the law cant even be carried out by the DA without fear fo reprisal from the public.

 

[Gary]

Another instance of mob mentality ... its a shame the law cant even be carried out by the DA without fear fo reprisal from the public.

When the rules become more important than the vice that they were supposed to remedy, the rules themselves become the vice. It seems that we only have "law enforcement officers" today. In years gone by we had "peace officers". I don't know to which mob the above quote is referring. As I understand the situation there was the NAACP on one side demanding that Mr. Buttrum be prosecuted to the fullest and on the other side there were some gun rights activists that thought that he should be given a medal. But as we can see from the posts on this forum of gun rights activists, the solution to the probem was not unanimous. Gary Duncan is the States Attorney and he is a Democrat. If he was going to cave to the mob mentality, I think that he would have been inclined to go with the wishes of the NAACP. I don't think that his decision has anything to do with being pro-gun or anti-gun. I think that he simply looked at Mr. Buttrum who is basically a "good guy" that did something that many of us might consider ill-advised. Convicting him of a felony is not going to get a "bad guy" off of the street or preserve the peace of the community.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Buttrum will not face prosecution. He will be given one year of probation and a 3-hour gun safety class.

Again, you can try to make this about the awful danger of automobiles if you want, but that has NEVER been publicly stated or implied as a concern by the SA's office. If they ever considered charging him for dangerous driving, they did it in private and rejected the notion. Could it be that some are picturing the chase in terms other than what really happened? Naw, probably not.

SA Duncan has apparently decided that he hates John Birch and CC, Inc., but can't afford politically to anger gun owners. I think that shows a certain wisdom.

He did have the gall to tell the Mount Vernon newspaper that although he was aware that some "concealed weapons advocate" from Northern Illinois had asked people to call, no one actually called his office.

Now, on Friday, his secretary read back my name, phone number and position on this issue to me. She told me that the SA would want my name and number "so he can call you back." I knew that was unlikely, but I left him my cell number anyway. Now he claims no one called him.

By the way, to hold a thief at gunpoint is NOT against the law as I understand it. IF he decides he has the cojones to walk away from your gun, I wouldn't fire, but if he decides to go through you instead, you might wish you were armed. The weapon should be used in self-defense only in that situation, but that's true of most crimes under Illinois law. It doesn't mean you're not allowed to have the gun at hand, for goodness' sake.

 

[Jeff White]

Don,
Here's the article from the Mt. Vernon Register News. It doesn't mention anything about ; He did have the gall to tell the Mount Vernon newspaper that although he was aware that some "concealed weapons advocate" from Northern Illinois had asked people to call, no one actually called his office. It also doesn't mention probation. He'd have to be charged for something to be put on probation. I'm going to town afterwhile and I'm going to pick up the hard copy of the paper to see if there is anything different in that article.

Jeff

http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory...87&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top Stories&CATEGORYID=410
No charges for man who chased gas thief
Jul 22 2004 12:00AM By By MARY KAYE DAVIS
[email protected]

MT. VERNON — A Bluford store owner will not be charged on a weapons violation for holding at bay a teen who allegedly stole gasoline from his store. Instead, he has been asked to take training on property protection rights.
In May, Bob Buttrum, owner of Midway Mart on Illinois 15 East near Marcum City Road, helped chase a vehicle of teens after the driver of the car allegedly pumped gas and then drove away without paying for it. Once Buttrum and several of his friends blocked the car with their vehicles, Buttrum displayed a gun and held the teens until deputies could arrive. The teen driver was later charged with theft.
After reviewing sheriff’s department reports, Jefferson County State’s Attorney Gary Duncan said Wednesday afternoon Buttrum won’t be charged.
“In the alternative, Mr. Buttrum has agreed to take specific training so that he will be better informed of his rights to protect his property and the limitations on those rights if he elects to pursue a property offender away from his business location,†Duncan said.
The training will be three hours.
Duncan added that community training also will be available because he believes “many in the community do not have an adequate understanding of recent legislative changes in firearms laws and of the laws in general regarding citizens arrests.â€
“The Jefferson County State’s Attorney and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department have obtained approval from the Illinois Appellate Prosecutor to sponsor a joint community training to advise business owners, property owners and citizens in general about lawful remedies to protect property,†Duncan said. “The Mt. Vernon Police Department has also offered assistance in this public awareness effort.â€
The classes will be held in the city as well as in rural areas and will also provide information on how to deter thieves and protect property.
The state’s attorney said business and property owners have a “clear right†under Illinois law to protect themselves and their property.
Duncan said that Buttrum agreed to take the course.
Buttrum said he believed he followed the law and did nothing wrong.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Concealed Carry, Inc.'s take:

BOB BUTTRUM WILL NOT BE CHARGED BY JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY

Amazing what a little pressure can do to bring justice.

Just a few days ago Jefferson County State's Attorney Gary Duncan papered the county with subpoena's for a grand jury hearing to indict convenience store owner Mr. Bob Buttrum on felony Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons charges. (To recap Mr. Buttrum chased down a gas thief and held him at bay by brandishing a handgun until the Jefferson County Sheriff could arrive.)

Then a strange thing happened. Mr. Duncan changed his mind. All Bob has to do is take a three hour gun safety class and stay clean for a year and all is forgotten, forgiven, etc.

In fact Mr. Duncan wants everyone to know he supports gun owners. Amazing what a few phone calls will do to shine the bright light of truth on a situation. I'm sure Mr. Duncan saw that his political future was in the balance and acted accordingly. I'd of done the same thing. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Something sadly lacking in Cook County but clearly still alive and well in Jefferson County.

Looks like Mr. Duncan may make efforts to brand me a racist, or so one source tells me. Oh well, when you got nothing else in your quiver play the race card I guess. I say bring the accusations on and let's party.

Also the Mt. Vernon Register newspaper played a huge role in hanging on to this story with tenacity. The last thing any politician wants is press involving the prosecution of a family man out protecting his business from predators. Kind of sends the wrong signal to criminals - don't you know - when the State's Attorney makes it clear that victims of crime are the ones going to jail and not the perpetrators.

A special thank you to the various confidential sources that kept CC News in the loop as this story developed. Your confidence and special trust will not be betrayed.

So to all of you who got off your butt's to make your voices heard, great job. To those who sat on your ass, well at least enjoy the good news and hope one day it's not you in Mr. Bob Buttrum's shoes.

For now let's assume State's Attorney Duncan is a convert and will act in the interests law abiding gun owners with the zealotry of the newly baptized.

NOTE: This story was withheld 24 hours out of fear that SA Duncan might change his mind and arrest Bob because CC, Inc. has really pissed Mr. Duncan off in a big way. Now that the story that Bob will not be prosecuted is in the downstate press, we feel it is safe to publish the above article. Folks, it's not my job to get all cozy with State's Attornies. I'd like it if they would just stick to real crime, play a few rounds of golf, have a cocktail or two and collect a pay check. But when they prosecute (or threaten to prosecute) a good gun owner...well you know what we say at CC, INC..."When you arrest one gun owner, you arrest all gun owners." Thanks to you we are batting 1.000 and while we are not making any friends, we are educating one State's Attorney at a time. That said, I think I'll be staying out of Jefferson County.

Though the Mt. Vernon Morning Sentinel did not contact me, here is what they said about CC, Inc.:

The case caught the attention of of at least one concealed weapons advocate in northern Illinois who editorialized that buttrum was being unfairly persecuted and urged people to contact Duncan in protest. However, no one did, Duncan said. The advocate also theorized that Buttrum would be indicted because Mitchell is black.

I guess SA Duncan forgot to check his voicemail? Are we to believe that after papering Jefferson County with subpoenas that SA Duncan suddenly, on his own, and without any provocation, changed his mind? Believe what you will. We didn't say Buttrum would be prosecuted because Mitchell was black, we said our sources said SA Duncan was under pressure from the NAACP.

 

[Jeff White]

Don,
The Sentinal isn't online, but I'll pick one of those up too. Check your PMs.

Jeff

 

[Sergeant Bob]

I'm glad someone finally realized who the victim was in this deal (however he came to that realization).

Another SALUTE (that's a big salute) to Mr. Buttrum and everyone who "didn't"? contact the SA!!!

 

[Gary]

SA Duncan has apparently decided that he hates John Birch and CC, Inc.,

Don, I am not challenging your opinion, but could you give us some of the details of why you have come to this conclusion? I live in Mt. Vernon and have talked with Mr. Duncan on occasion about the state of gun laws in Illinois particularly after the prosecution on Vana Haggerty and he has been professional and ameniable. I can't say the same thing for some of his associates and as a result he has told me that if I ever need to discuss something with the States Attorney's office to contact him directly. If there is bad blood now, I need to know more about it before I have the occasion to meet with him again.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Gary, I took John's word for that. I have not been able to catch Mr. Duncan in the office to speak to him personally. I may, at this point, call him and ask whether he told the Sentinel that no one had called.

He did do the right thing, and I have no wish to start a feud with the man. I believe John based his statements on phone conversations with Mr. Duncan, but I could be wrong. John is also something of a showboat, as you might expect from someone who does what he does.

Jeff, we cross posted. There's a PM waiting for you now. I said "probation" based on this:

All Bob has to do is take a three hour gun safety class and stay clean for a year and all is forgotten, forgiven, etc.

. . . . but the year of "staying clean" is not mentioned in the article you posted. Could be John misunderstood that part. Is there an equivalent term for probation? I was once placed under "supervision" for a year back in my wild and reckless youth when I was caught speeding. Would this be something similar?

 

[Jeff White]

Don,
It could be court supervision, but if so he'd have to be charged, plead guilty and placed there by the court, usually as part of a plea agreement. Similar to what you did in traffic court. It could be that prosectution was deferred if he stayed clean for a year. That could even have been done with a verbal agreement between Buttram's attorney and Gary Duncan.

I will make some calls tomorrow and see if I can get any inside info. I think you may be right about John showboating a little. It'll make a nice fundraising story for those in the Northern part of the state who may or may not have any way of knowing what really happened down here.

Sergeant Bob said;

How many times had this guy been robbed? I'll bet drive offs are pretty common.
How high on the police list of priorities do you do you think this is?
Let's see, Homicide Division.....Narcotics.....Gasoline Drive Off Division...don't think so.

I am a peace officer one county North of where this incident occurred. Drive offs are not all that common, but unlike in larger jurisdictions we often catch the offenders. Part of the reason is that our activity isn't so high that we don't have time to mess with those calls and part of it is the ISPERN system operated by the Illinois State Police that puts information on an incident like that in every state, county and local squad car in the area within minutes of the drive off happening. I can tell you with almost 100% sureity that if Buttram had called in the license number, vehicle description and a description of the driver that Larry Mitchell would have been arrested and charged with the theft. If he wasn't caught on the road, someone would have went to his home and arrested him. We do this all the time. As near as I can tell, everything that Buttram did was legal under Illinois law. I don't think it was the smartest way to handle the situation. Legal doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do and I promise you the civil consequences would have been much more expensive then the tank full of gas had an innocent party been killed while Buttram was chasing down the thief. Maybe Buttram was just fed up with drive offs, maybe he was living out a Starsky and Hutch fantasy? Who knows? Who cares? It's really immaterial why he did it, it wasn't the smart thing to do. Now had Mitchell kidnapped a child from the station, it would have been justified, but not the way it was reported here IMHO. Legal doesn't make it right.

Jeff